Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

The 510 is 1280x720 as opposed to 1280x768. The 510 has a 0.62" DLP chip compared to the 0.65" in the 500 (not sure what this means to performance). Contrast ratio is the same but the 510 lists with 1000 lumens as opposed to the 1200 lumens of the 500. The only other difference I see is the 510 has something called TrueVision Image Processing, and I'm not sure what that is.

Well... I have to say that I am very impressed with my DT-500 as is my wife, which is the reall telling part!
I have had this projector sitting in a box for about 9 months waiting until I finished the remodel project that would eventually yield my home theater. Well, I mounted it this last weekend and it is superb. I don't even have a proper screen to show it on and it is still fantastic. My wall currently is sort of a light reddish color. I'll be painting on a screen this weekend. My projector is ceiling mounted on a drop acousitcal ceiling. It is only about 7' from the ground and 13' away from the wall. I have an approximately 100" picture going. So I have about 15" from the bottom of the picture to the floor.
We sit almost underneath the projector and I can not even tell that it has a fan, it is that quiet to me. The picture is real nice out of the box, from what I can tell. This is my first projector and I am quite pleased with it!
Of course I bought it from the store not to be mentioned here that changed their return policy, so I paid a little more than you folks are doing now. But since I purchased it a week before the poilcy change, I do have a lifetime warranty on it.
Overall...if you are in the market for a real nice DLP projector, I would not hesitate to buy a DT-500.

Anyone ever find a good price on lamps?Don't need one yet but I wouldn't mind having one available.Btw,I still can't get a signal from my hd satellite to my pj through hdmi.Is there a setting I am missing?

You could open it up and find out what the bulb itself is and order it straight from the manufacturer (ex. Philips) or where ever else. It is usually about 1/3rd the price since it does not come with the housing, just be careful when replacing the bulb.

I'm doing 'RADIO' instead. No kidding. The wildfires out here wiped out 2/3 of our imported juice and emergency cutbacks have been requested. So for the time being I'm monitoring my consumption. Hence, no PJ, AC, or oven for the last 5 days. Hot water is provided by natural gas so no problem there. We should be back to normal in a few days.
PS: I'm taking requests.

I'm doing 'RADIO' instead. No kidding. The wildfires out here wiped out 2/3 of our imported juice and emergency cutbacks have been requested. So for the time being I'm monitoring my consumption. Hence, no PJ, AC, or oven for the last 5 days. Hot water is provided by natural gas so no problem there. We should be back to normal in a few days.
PS: I'm taking requests.

PJ in full throttle. But...now, technical difficulties. Tripod head damaged and NEW digicam way too contrasty for screen shots. (Handheld at 1/4 second sucks). Time to dust off my trusty Oly, charge up some NiMH batts, and repair the tripod head. The delay is unavoidable. Sorry.

Just out of curiosity, what at what level are some/most of you running your fan speed? I set mine to high...just to be "safe" and when I turned it down, I couldn't believe how quiet it was. Having said that, there's usually enough noise in my house that the volume of the HT drowns out any fan noise/background/kids/dogs noise anyway.

Just out of curiosity, what at what level are some/most of you running your fan speed? I set mine to high...just to be "safe" and when I turned it down, I couldn't believe how quiet it was. Having said that, there's usually enough noise in my house that the volume of the HT drowns out any fan noise/background/kids/dogs noise anyway.

I set mine to high awhile back. The other noises do drown out the high fan. At first I was lilke "Whoa. That's quite a bit louder." when I changed to high, but my brain adapted. I don't notice it when watching a movie or anything.

No problem. Looking forward to seeing some good screenshots of this pj in action.

Promise made, promise kept.

But, aaaaarrrgggg. These are still too darn contrasty. Highlights blowout, blacks get crushed regardless what digicam I use. The following series was taken with my trusty Oly 2100UZ of 2001. I was thinking about reshooting in RAW with my D50 and then post processing but that would invite doctoring the image, an AVS taboo.

For some reason the snappier the image, the harder to capture as seen on the screen. These will have to make do for now.

But, aaaaarrrgggg. These are still too darn contrasty. Highlights blowout, blacks get crushed regardless what digicam I use. The following series was taken with my trusty Oly 2100UZ of 2001. I was thinking about reshooting in RAW with my D50 and then post processing but that would invite doctoring the image, an AVS taboo.

For some reason the snappier the image, the harder to capture as seen on the screen. These will have to make do for now.

From "Immortal Beloved"

#1 City scape

Try miscalibrating the image to make up for the lack of dynamic range. Raise the black level (and maybe lower the contrast too) and you will get a more accurate image with more dark and highlight detail. I get much better photos with my camcorder when I do that and it looks a lot more like what I see in reality.

The photos aren't bad though, but the only way some of these cameras can capture the image right is by miscalibrating the image. The thing to remember is these cameras don't have the contrast range of our eyes so the best way to make up for that is to decrease the contrast of the image, espeically in higher contrast scenes.

Try it out and see if you can get good results. I usually make the image more washed out and capture an image that looks a lot closer to what my eyes see.

Try miscalibrating the image to make up for the lack of dynamic range. Raise the black level (and maybe lower the contrast too) and you will get a more accurate image with more dark and highlight detail. I get much better photos with my camcorder when I do that and it looks a lot more like what I see in reality.

Try it out and see if you can get good results. I usually make the image more washed out and capture an image that looks a lot closer to what my eyes see.

Yikes! I work so hard getting the image 'just right'. Now, go 'dumb' it down to make it 'look' right.
There's got to be another way. Clarence of G90 CRT fame gets them.

I'd use your D50 shooting raw format which uses the camera's maximum dynamic range and then adjust the image "to most accurately represent what your natural eye sees" in photoshop or GIMP. There's a big difference between post-processing to artificially enhance a picture and doing the post processing yourself to accurately re-create reality.

Letting the camera guess at it with it's auto settings is often inaccurate and limited with what it can do in real time than a PC and your eye can after the fact...make sure your monitor isn't horribly miscalibrated though.

Just my $0.02 and glad to see your not a crispy afterthought of those fires down there!

Yikes! I work so hard getting the image 'just right'. Now, go 'dumb' it down to make it 'look' right.
There's got to be another way. Clarence of G90 CRT fame gets them.

Hey. The camera simply sees different than our eyes. It doesn't have the range. I'm not saying you gotta watch it like that. lol. My setting are easy to remember for contrast and brightness. If I need to see what I see on screen sometimes when the contrast is too high I'll raise the black level and lower the contrast so the camer can render the image properly.

I don't know how other get great screenshot. Maybe DLPs high ANSI contrast combined with its light output compared to CRT makes it harder for a digital camera to capture and maybe he also has a better cam. I don't know.

I know with my camcorder there is only one way to achieve decent screenshots.

I've been getting more and more into photography after starting to take portrait photos of my family rather than send them to a professional. I've only obtained enough information to become dangerous

From what I've read in photo instruction books, online, and in some brief medical papers is that there is 'White Balancing Interpretation' that our minds conduct between our eyes receptors and the brains final analysis. So in essence, when a subject is fully lit by fluorescent, tungston, hallogen, candescent or sunlight they all appear relatively 'White' to us. A camera captures the light in it's basic form, i.e. fluorescent = bluish, tungston = warm or orangish, sunlight = pure during mid-day, etc. The cameras output must then be adjusted to how our brain interprets it to make it appear correctly to how we see it. Make sense?

Cameras, even the top SLR's, are only okay at White Balance. On the upper-end cameras there is a blanking white balance method that works the best but still is not perfect. You essentially take 3 consecutive photos at 3 different settings. The camera then adjusts and averages for the best white balance.

The best white balance technique is to utilize a software program like Photoshop to adjust the Histogram levels so that Red, Blue, and Green are adjusted to cover the full spectrum from 0 to 255.

Photographers will use the black & white cards to white balance, but more importantly to adjust the iso, shutter, and apperture for the correct exposure. For the screen shots, making sure you have the correct exposure is more important. If you desire, you can then adjust the White Balance in Photoshop.

I came up with a method to try & compare my old LT150 projector versus the new DT500. I used my Nikon D80 in full manual. ISO, Aperture, Shutter, White Balance, Contrast, etc were all manual in normal settings. Here is the link to the thread discussing the camera settings & how the shots were taken: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=840495

I came up with a method to try & compare my old LT150 projector versus the new DT500. I used my Nikon D80 in full manual. ISO, Aperture, Shutter, White Balance, Contrast, etc were all manual in normal settings. Here is the link to the thread discussing the camera settings & how the shots were taken: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=840495